FA2860-16-R-0030_Amendment_2.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update the evaluation criteria.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Sep-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA2860-16-R-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Aug-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Sep-2016

CODE

11TH CONTRACTING SQUADRON

1349 LUTMAN DRIVE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS MD 20762-6501

FA2860 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA2860-16-R-0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 28-Sep-2016 03:00 PM to 12-Oct-2016 02:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

1. Performance Work Statement for Kitchen Hood and Duct Maintenance dated 22 Jul 16

2. FA2860-16-R-0030 TEP Summary and Price Exhibits A-F

3. Area Wage Determination No. 2015-4281, Revision 3, dated 8 Apr 16

4. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan dated 18 Jul 16 (for informational purposes only)

FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM

A. Period for Acceptance of Offers. FAR 52.212-1(c) is tailored as follows: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

B. Multiple Offers. FAR 52.212-1(e) is deleted.

C. Proposal Preparation Instructions: To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts containing the evaluated factors:

Part I – Price Proposal

Part II – Technical Proposal

Part III – Past Performance Information

D. Specific Instructions:

Part I – Price Proposal

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of Price Exhibits A through F as outlined in the

TEP Summary. Insert proposed prices for all requested Contract Line Item Numbers in Contract

Price Exhibits A through F (Attachment 2). All unit pricing provided must be at the fully burdened rate including (overhead, G&A, profit, etc.). The Price Proposal must include prices in all the following:

TEP Summary

Price Exhibit A – Base Year

Price Exhibit B – Option Period 1

Price Exhibit C – Option Period 2

Price Exhibit D – Option Period 3

Price Exhibit E – Option Period 4

Price Exhibit F – Six Month Extension of Services

Part II – Technical Proposal

This proposal part is limited to three (3) single-sided pages with a minimum of 12 point font.

This part shall contain a technical description of the services being offered in sufficient detail to demonstrate sound management principles to ensure that Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements shall be met (see Attachment 1). Submit a comprehensive Quality Control Plan for establishing and maintaining a quality control/inspection program. This plan shall include responsibility for internal and external surveillances/inspections. This shall include the resolution of deficiencies and corrective actions.

Part III – Past Performance Information

This proposal part is limited to three (3) single-sided pages with a minimum of 12 point font.

Only references for the offering prime contractor for the same or similar services should be submitted for the following:

(a) Quality and satisfaction rating for contracts completed in the past three (3) years from issue date of this solicitation: provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed services for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance.

(b) Past Performance References: The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System, other federal government offices and commercial sources to assess performance.

Provide a list of three (3) to five (5) references, of the most relevant contracts performed for federal agencies and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include efforts involving same or similar services. Furnish the following information for each contract referenced:

-Company/Division name

-Service Provided

-Contracting Agency/Customer

-Contract Number

-Contract Dollar Value

-Period of Performance

-Verified, up-to-date name, e-mail and telephone number of the Contracting Officer or similar Point of Contact

-Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

-Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

E. Note to Offerors: Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the evaluation factors for award.

All proposals for this solicitation are due by 12 Oct 16 at 2:00PM EST.

All questions concerning this solicitation are due by 5 Oct 16 at 2:00PM EST to:

Carolina I. Brost (Primary)

Contract Administrator

Phone: (240) 612-5632

E-mail: carolina.i.brost.civ@mail.mil or

Julia A. Johnson (Alternate)

Contracting Officer

Phone: (240) 612-5652

E-mail: julia.a.johnson6.civ@mail.mil

F. General Information

(a) Information regarding submission of proposal: Offerors are cautioned that Joint Base Andrews, MD has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass to be able to deliver the proposal on time if hand delivering a proposal. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM

A. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(a) Price

(b) Technical Acceptability

(c) Past Performance

B. Evaluation Process:

(a) Price Evaluation: All offerors shall be ranked by price from lowest to highest. The Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) is calculated by adding together all pricing for the base period, all option periods and the extension of services as outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum. This is the total amount listed in the TEP Summary in attachment 2.

(b) Technical Acceptability Evaluation: Following, all proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability as outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum. If an offeror is deemed technically mailto:julia.a.johnson6.civ@mail.mil unacceptable, no other part of their proposal will be evaluated. The technical evaluation is to ensure that an offeror can meet the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement

(PWS). Ratings will be given on a pass/fail basis as follows:

PASS - Based on the information provided in the technical proposal, the offeror is able to meet the requirements of the PWS and maintain an acceptable quality control program.

The offeror takes no exceptions to the requirements outlined in the solicitation or the

PWS.

FAIL - Based on the information provided in the technical proposal, the offeror cannot meet the requirements of the PWS and maintain an acceptable quality control program or the offeror takes exceptions to any of the requirements outlined in the solicitation or the

PWS.

(c) Past Performance: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements. A past performance evaluation will be accomplished for the purpose of assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment rating to the offeror’s proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial

Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown

Confidence as defined below. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (Neutral) - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

Recency: In order for past performance to be considered recent, performance must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy: Relevant performance information will be based on the references provided and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving the same or similar services. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The following relevancy rating definitions will be used in the assessment of relevancy:

VERY RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

C. Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive selection in which competing offerors’ present and past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to be technically acceptable, responsible and has a

“Substantial Confidence” performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the Best Value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point.

Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to be technically acceptable or have a “Substantial

Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to be technically acceptable and have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated.

The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment Best Value award decision.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR

52.212-1 Addendum to permit a meaningful assessment of technical acceptability and past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

D. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The

Government; however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Summary of Changes)